My requirement is to validate this Here user needs to allow values only from 2000 to 9999.

I have find following to do this :-->

(1). I have created a domain and put the value range as 2000 to 9999 and used that data element. ( This is not working and not giving error message if user enter value as 1000 in s_acti-low)

I know it can validated in "at selection screen" event . But the issue is here user can enter values <2000 or >9999 or ne 2000 like that . I find these combinations validations in the "at selection screen" more tedious.

Other possible way i saw is create an internal table with value ranging from 0000 to 1999 and value the selection option

@a®s - the issue I have with this is that in your original post, you set out your requirements, stating what you do and do not want; then after a number of people try to solve your problem, you mark as solved an answer which gives a solution that you specifically say you don't want and then assign nothing to the others.

I think it would have been better to assign a yellow star to each answer and close the thread as "closed but unanswered".

know it can validated in "at selection screen" event . But the issue is here user can enter values <2000 or >9999 or ne 2000 like that . I find these combinations validations in the "at selection screen" more tedious.

My requirement is to avoid internal table in some manner, and the given the maximum points to user who given the answer close to resolve the issue.

Now i have made question "Closed but answered" and given points to each user who answered.

My explnation here is not to hurt anybody's intensions, who are giving answers.

I really didn't mean anything personal - I was more thinking about the point system in general. Moderators see a lot of posts where points are assigned (if at all) to posts that are incorrect or irrelevant (not saying that this is the case here). So this skews a system that is already not helpful in the long run.

Rob

PS Since you did mark this as closed but unanswered, I couldn't respond to it originally. I had to mark it as un answered. You can change it back at your convenience.